Precautionary principle and denial of municipal subdivision approval in aquifer recharge zonePrincipio precautorio y denegación de visado municipal en zona de recarga acuífera

Nº 942-2010 ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY LITIGATION COURT. THIRD SECTION. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. ANNEX A. Goicoechea, at fifteen hours and fifteen minutes on the eleventh of March, two thousand ten.- This Court, acting as an improper superior authority, hears the appeal filed by Nombre101916, of legal age, divorced, homemaker, resident of San Rafael de Heredia, with identity card number CED77851, in her capacity as General Attorney-in-Fact without sum limit for the company Brame S.A., against the resolution adopted by the Municipal Council of San Rafael de Heredia, in ordinary session Nº 171-2008 held on May 5, 2008, agreement Nº 3.

Judge Rojas Morales writes the opinion, and;

CONSIDERING:

I.- For a proper resolution of this matter, the following is deemed proven: 1) That the company Brame Sociedad Anónima requested from the Municipal Engineering Department the approval (visado) of the cadastral survey plans Placa16769 and Placa16770, with areas of 486.88 and 414.13 square meters respectively; both properties originate from the property registered under the recorded document folio number Placa16768, according to cadastral survey plan Placa16771, with an area of one thousand three hundred seventy-two point forty-two square meters, in the name of the company Brame S.A. (see pages 9, 10, and 14, as well as the registration certification visible on page 56); 2) That the cited property, located in the Quintanar de la Sierra development (urbanización), was registered in the Catastro Nacional in the year 1977 (page 10); 3) That the approval requested for cadastral survey plans Placa16769 and Placa16770 was denied through official communication OV-029-2008 of March 31, 2008, as the lands in question are located within the "protection zone" established in Decreto Nº 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE, published in supplement 15 of La Gaceta Nº 66 of April 7, 1997 (Addition to the Regulatory Plan for the Greater Metropolitan Area, GAM, Decreto Nº 13583 of May 18, 1982), which requires maintaining low residential density in that zone, which has soils through which "water infiltrates and percolates, recharging the underground aquifers that supply a very high percentage of the drinking water demand for the central valley" (official communication on pages 14 and 15); 4) The cited company filed a motion for reconsideration and appeal against the decision and, through official communication OV-034-2008, the Department of Real Property and Cadastre rejected the motion for reconsideration, while the Municipal Council, in the agreement adopted in ordinary session Nº 171-2008, held on May 5, 2008, agreement 3, dismissed the appeal (pages 19 and 24 to 29); 5) The interested company subsequently filed motions for reconsideration with a subsidiary appeal against the previous decision, and through the agreement adopted in extraordinary session Nº 183-2008, held on June 25, 2008, it was ordered to reject the motion for reconsideration and admit the appeal, the remedy by which this Court hears the case (pages 46 to 53); 6) The technical report ordered by the court for a better resolution of this matter indicates that the Regional Plan for the Greater Metropolitan Area (GAM) defines the area where the properties of the appellant company are located as a "Special Protection Zone," with predominantly agricultural use and the following limitations: "within the zone, only developments (urbanizaciones) and urban-type easements (servidumbres) will be permitted in the expansion areas of the quadrants of the district centers. Only one dwelling per property will be permitted (…) the minimum area is two hectares, with a coverage of 2%." Likewise, it is indicated that, according to studies conducted by SENARA, the zone where the two properties in question are located must be classified as an "aquifer recharge" area with "medium to high" vulnerability. In the case of medium vulnerability, the permitted lots must be 650 square meters, and in the case of high vulnerability, the lands must have an area of 2,000 square meters. (technical report ASUB-549-08 visible on pages 89 to 90).

II.- FACTUAL FRAMEWORK: As recorded in the case file, the appellant requested from the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia the approval for segregation purposes of the cadastral survey plans numbers Placa16772 with an area of 486.88 square meters and Placa16773 with an area of 414.13 square meters; both originating from the property registered in the Public Registry under folio number Placa16768, described as lot Nº 16 located at Dirección11448, , Province of Heredia with an area of one thousand three hundred seventy-two point forty-two square meters, according to cadastral survey plan Placa16771, which was registered in the Catastro Nacional in the year 1977 (see pages 9, 10, and 14). When resolving the appeal filed, the Municipal Council ordered confirmation of the denial of the approval on the grounds that the agreement adopted by that same body in session Nº 38-2006 of October 2, 2006, established that the Engineering Department would not authorize subdivisions (segregaciones) in the residential developments Ave del Paraíso, Residencial El Monte, Residencial El Castillo, and Residencial Kitimat, ordering that in those areas the lands had to remain as they were approved in the original development project. For its part, the appellant maintains that the Quintamar de la Sierra development was not included among those indicated by the cited Municipal Council agreement and that the site map of the development approved by the local government predates the enactment of the GAM in the year 1982, which is why it meets all the requirements demanded by that regulatory body to obtain the requested approvals, which it deems to have been illegitimately denied.

III.- The Court notes that the cadastral survey plan H-35288-77 was registered in the Catastro Nacional in the year 1977 (page 10); that is, before the GAM entered into force -1982-; additionally, the cited residential development is not included among the projects in which the local government determined in the year 2006 that no further subdivisions (fraccionamientos) of land would be permitted due to being located in protected zones. Now, the Municipal Council in the contested agreement indicated that, regardless of whether a certificate of compliant land use had been granted in due time to subdivide and build several dwellings for the appellant company in the cited area, at the time of authorizing the approval (visado) it managed to determine that the two properties intended to be subdivided are physically located within the GAM protection area for underground aquifers, and therefore the technical recommendation consists of maintaining the zone as "low density," since excessive fragmentation of the land –such as that intended with the requested approvals– would expose those underground aquifers to contamination and they supply a large part of the metropolitan area (see the official communication from the Topographical Engineer on page 15, taken up for assessment by the Municipal Council).

IV.- ON THE MERITS: The Court requested evidence from SENARA for a better resolution of this matter, asking it to indicate to the Court whether the properties corresponding to cadastral survey plans 21948-2008 and 1216949-2008 are located within a hydrological protection area, and if so, the effects this would have from an urban planning perspective. In the technical report sent to this court through official communication ASUB-549-08 (see page 89), it was indicated that the Regional Plan for the Greater Metropolitan Area (GAM), applicable in San Rafael de Heredia in the absence of a regulatory plan, defines the area where the appellant's properties are located as a "Special Protection Zone," with predominantly agricultural use and the following limitations: "within the zone, only developments (urbanizaciones) and urban-type easements (servidumbres) will be permitted in the expansion areas of the quadrants of the district centers. Only one dwelling per property will be permitted (…) the minimum area is two hectares, with a coverage of 2%" (ibidem). That is, by the date on which the appellant company requested approval of the plans in question (2008, as recorded on page 14), the GAM had included the area where the appellant's properties are located as a "protection zone," and these urban planning regulations, being of public order, must be applied by the local government when ruling on the approval requested by the appellant company in the year 2008, without the Court understanding that there is retroactive application of that regulatory body, insofar as the initial area of the property registered under cadastral survey plan H-0035288-1977 with an area of one thousand three hundred seventy-two point forty-two square meters was the area consolidated with the areas authorized at that time, but one cannot attempt, based on that situation, to carry out a subsequent subdivision (fraccionamiento), contrary to the urban planning regulations in force at that time, which included the zone of the lots in question within a protection zone, as has been indicated.

V.- SENARA, in the technical report requested by this court and which is attached to pages 83 to 90, clearly indicated that the zones where the appellant's properties are located must be considered an "aquifer recharge zone and of medium to high vulnerability," which prevents the development of high-density developments (urbanizaciones), as well as the use of septic tanks. According to the cited report, in the case of medium vulnerability, the permitted lots must be 650 square meters, and in the case of high vulnerability, the lands must have an area of 2,000 square meters. The Court considers that the requested approval, insofar as it entails an excessive subdivision (fraccionamiento) (486.88 and 414.13 square meters in each case), given the aquifer recharge conditions of the land, fails to comply with the collected technical criteria; consequently, the Municipal Council of San Rafael properly applied the precautionary principle and the principle of technical support for urban-environmental decisions by denying the approval, as a requirement for subdivision, which is consistent with the constitutional obligation enshrined in Article 50 of the Constitution. It must be clear that, by provision of Article 16.1 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública:

"1.- In no case may acts be issued contrary to unequivocal rules of science or technique, or to elementary principles of justice, logic, or convenience. (…)." Technical criteria are part of the legality framework, and in the specific case, the Court has been able to verify that they support the decision adopted by the local government.

VI).- The Municipal Council's agreement denying the approval of the plans conforms to the technical criteria that this Court has been able to gather and which are attached to the case file. It must be noted that, in a similar case, the Constitutional Court in judgment Nº 2004-01923 of 2:55 p.m. on February 25, 2004, indicated:

"…One of the guiding principles of Environmental Law is the precautionary principle or principle of prudent avoidance. This principle is contained in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development or Rio Declaration, which literally states 'Principle 15.- In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation'. In the domestic legal system, the Ley de Biodiversidad (No. 7788 of April 30, 1998), in its Article 11, incorporates as hermeneutical parameters the following principles: '1.- Preventive criterion: It is recognized that it is vitally important to anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of biodiversity loss or its threats. 2.- Precautionary criterion or in dubio pro natura: When there is danger or threat of serious or imminent damage to the elements of biodiversity and the knowledge associated with them, the absence of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of effective protection measures'. In Ruling No. 1250-99 of 11:24 a.m. on February 19, 1999, by this Chamber (reiterated in Rulings Nos. 9773-00 of 9:44 a.m. on November 3, 2000, 1711-01 of 4:32 p.m. on February 27, 2001, and 6322-03 of 2:14 p.m. on July 3, 2003), this Court considered the following: '(...) Prevention aims to anticipate negative effects and ensure the protection, conservation, and proper management of resources. Consequently, the guiding principle of prevention is based on the need to take and assume all precautionary measures to avoid containing the possible impact on the environment or the health of people. Thus, in the event that there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage –or doubt regarding it–, a precautionary measure must be adopted and even postpone the activity in question. The foregoing is because, in environmental matters, a posteriori coercion is ineffective, since if the socially harmful biological consequences have already occurred, repression may have a moral significance but will hardly compensate for the damage caused to the environment'. Subsequently, in Ruling No. 3480-03 of 2:02 p.m. on May 2, 2003, this Court indicated that 'Properly understood, the precautionary principle refers to the adoption of measures not in the face of ignorance of facts generating risk, but in the face of a lack of certainty regarding whether such facts will actually produce harmful effects on the environment'. In the case of groundwater contained in aquifers and recharge and discharge areas, the precautionary principle or in dubio pro natura supposes that when there are no studies or reports carried out according to the unequivocal and precisely applied rules of science and technique that allow reaching a state of absolute certainty about the innocuousness of the activity intended to be developed on the environment, or these are contradictory among themselves, the entities and bodies of the central and decentralized administration must refrain from authorizing, approving, or allowing any new or modified application, suspend those that are in progress until the doubtful state is resolved, and, in parallel, adopt all measures tending to its protection and preservation in order to guarantee the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In essence, safe environmental management of groundwater involves protecting the resource before its contamination or degradation…'.

VI.- It must be added that nothing prevents the appellant company, in furtherance of the principles of legitimate expectations (confianza legítima), good faith, and intangibility of property, from resorting to the Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction (Article 49 of the Political Constitution) to demand administrative liability for the expenses it has incurred while legitimately relying on what was certified by the local government, in relation to the subdivision (fraccionamiento) requested.

VII.- COROLLARY.- For the reasons given, the appealed resolution is confirmed, and as no further remedy lies against this decision, the administrative channel is deemed exhausted.

THEREFORE

For the reasons given, the appealed agreement is confirmed. The administrative channel is deemed exhausted.

I. Rocío Rojas Morales

Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes Isaac Guillermo Amador Hernández Case File: 08-000324-1027-CA Municipal Brame S.A. Dirección3985/ Nombre5139 In the technical report sent to this office via official communication ASUB-549-08 (see folio 89), it was indicated that the Regional Plan for the Greater Metropolitan Area (Plan Regional del Gran Área Metropolitana, GAM), applicable in San Rafael de Heredia in the absence of a regulatory plan, defines the area where the appellant's properties are located as a "Special Protection Zone (Zona Especial de Protección)," with predominantly agricultural use subject to the following limitations: "within the zone, only urbanizations and urban-type easements (servidumbres) shall be permitted in the expansion areas of the quadrants of the district centers. Only one dwelling per farm shall be permitted (…) the minimum area is two hectares, with 2% coverage" (ibidem). That is, at the time the appellant company requested the approval (visado) of the plans in question (2008, as stated at folio 14), the GAM had already included the area where the appellant's properties are situated as a "protection zone," and these urban planning regulations, being matters of public order, must be applied by the local government when ruling on the approval (visado) requested by the appellant company in 2008. The Tribunal does not find that there is a retroactive application of that regulatory body, insofar as the initial area of the property registered under cadastral map H-0035288-1977, with an area of one thousand three hundred seventy-two point forty-two square meters, was the one that was consolidated with the areas authorized at that moment; however, based on that situation, a subsequent subdivision (fraccionamiento) cannot be intended, contrary to the urban planning regulations in force at that time, which included the zone of the lots in question within a protection zone, as has been indicated.

V.- SENARA, in the technical report required by this office and added to folios 83 to 90, indicated with complete clarity that the zones where the appellant's properties are located must be considered "aquifer recharge zone (zona de recarga acuífera) and of medium to high vulnerability (vulnerabilidad media a alta)," which prevents the development of high-density urbanizations, as well as the use of septic tanks. According to the cited report, in the case of medium vulnerability (vulnerabilidad media), the permitted lots must be 650 square meters, and in the case of high vulnerability (vulnerabilidad alta), the land must have an area of 2000 square meters. The Tribunal considers that the approval (visado) requested, insofar as it entails an excessive subdivision (fraccionamiento) (486, 88, and 414.13 square meters in each case), given the aquifer recharge conditions of the land, fails to comply with the technical criteria gathered; consequently, the Concejo Municipal de San Rafael properly applied the precautionary (precautorio) and technical support principles for urban-environmental decisions by denying the approval (visado), as a requirement for the subdivision (fraccionamiento), which is consistent with the constitutional obligation enshrined in Article 50 of the Constitution. It must be clearly understood that, by provision of Article 16.1 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública):

"1.- In no case may acts be issued contrary to unequivocal rules of science or technique, or to elementary principles of justice, logic, or convenience. (…)." Technical criteria form part of the principle of legality (bloque de juridicidad), and in the specific case, the Tribunal has been able to verify that they support the decision adopted by the local government.

VI).- The agreement of the Concejo Municipal denying the approval (visado) of the plans conforms to the technical criteria that this Tribunal has been able to gather and that are attached to the file. It must be noted that, in a similar case, the Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucional), in judgment No. 2004-01923 at 2:55 p.m. on February 25, 2004, indicated:

"…One of the guiding principles of Environmental Law is the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) or principle of prudential avoidance (evitación prudente). This principle is enshrined in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development or Rio Declaration, which literally states 'Principle 15.- In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.' In the domestic legal system, the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad) (No. 7788 of April 30, 1998), in its Article 11, includes the following principles as interpretive parameters: '1.- Preventive criterion (Criterio preventivo): It is recognized that it is vitally important to anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of biodiversity loss or its threats. 2.- Precautionary criterion (Criterios precautorio) or in dubio pro natura (indubio pro natura): When there is danger or threat of serious or imminent damage to the elements of biodiversity and the knowledge associated with them, the absence of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of effective protection measures.' In Ruling (Voto) No. 1250-99 of this Chamber at 11:24 a.m. on February 19, 1999 (reiterated in Rulings (Votos) Nos. 9773-00 at 9:44 a.m. on November 3, 2000, 1711-01 at 4:32 p.m. on February 27, 2001, and 6322-03 at 2:14 p.m. on July 3, 2003), this Tribunal considered the following: '(...) Prevention seeks to anticipate negative effects and ensure the protection, conservation, and adequate management of resources. Consequently, the guiding principle of prevention is based on the need to take and assume all precautionary measures to avoid containing the possible impact on the environment or the health of people. Thus, in the event that there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage—or doubt in that regard—a precautionary measure must be adopted and even the activity in question must be postponed. The foregoing is because, in environmental matters, a posteriori coercion is ineffective, since once the biologically socially harmful consequences have already occurred, repression may have moral significance but will hardly compensate for the damages caused to the environment.' Subsequently, in Ruling (Voto) No. 3480-03 at 2:02 p.m. on May 2, 2003, this Tribunal indicated that 'The precautionary principle (principio precautorio), properly understood, refers to the adoption of measures not in the face of ignorance of risk-generating facts, but in the face of a lack of certainty that such facts will actually produce harmful effects on the environment.' In the case of groundwater contained in aquifers and recharge and discharge areas, the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) or in dubio pro natura (indubio pro natura) means that when there are no studies or reports carried out in accordance with the unequivocal and exactly applicable rules of science and technique that allow reaching a state of absolute certainty about the innocuousness of the activity intended to be developed on the environment, or these are contradictory among themselves, the entities and bodies of the central and decentralized administration must abstain from authorizing, approving, or permitting any new or modified application, suspend those that are in progress until the state of doubt is cleared, and, in parallel, adopt all measures aimed at their protection and preservation in order to guarantee the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In essence, safe environmental management of groundwater involves protecting the resource before its contamination or degradation…".

VI.- It should be added that nothing prevents the appellant company, in furtherance of the principles of legitimate expectations (confianza legítima), good faith (buena fe), and the inviolability of assets (intangibilidad del patrimonio), from resorting to the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Article 49 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política)) to demand administrative liability for the expenses it has incurred in legitimately relying on what was certified by the local government in relation to the requested subdivision (fraccionamiento).

VII.- COROLLARY.- For the reasons stated, the appealed resolution is confirmed, and as no further appeal lies against this decision, the administrative process is deemed exhausted.

POR TANTO

For the reasons given, the appealed agreement is confirmed. The administrative process is deemed exhausted.

I. Rocío Rojas Morales

Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes Isaac Guillermo Amador Hernández Municipal Brame S.A. Dirección3985/ Nombre5139 2.- Precautionary criteria or in dubio pro natura: When there is danger or threat of serious or imminent harm to the elements of biodiversity and the knowledge associated with them, the absence of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of effective protection measures." In Voto of this Chamber No. 1250-99 of 11:24 hours on February 19, 1999 (reiterated in Votos Nos. 9773-00 of 9:44 hours on November 3, 2000, 1711-01 of 16:32 hours on February 27, 2001, and 6322-03 of 14:14 hours on July 3, 2003), this Court considered the following: "(...) Prevention aims to anticipate negative effects, and ensure the protection, conservation, and adequate management of resources. Consequently, the guiding principle of prevention is based on the need to take and assume all precautionary measures to avoid containing the possible impact on the environment or the health of people. Thus, in the event that there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage –or a doubt regarding it–, a precautionary measure must be adopted and even the activity in question postponed. The foregoing is because in environmental matters, a posteriori coercion proves ineffective, since once the biologically and socially harmful consequences have already occurred, repression may have moral significance, but it will hardly compensate for the damage caused to the environment." Subsequently, in Voto No. 3480-03 of 14:02 hours on May 2, 2003, this Court indicated that "Properly understood, the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) refers to the adoption of measures not in the face of ignorance of the facts generating risk, but in the face of a lack of certainty that such facts will actually produce harmful effects on the environment." For the case of groundwater (aguas subterráneas) contained in aquifers (mantos acuíferos) and recharge and discharge areas (áreas de carga y descarga), the precautionary principle or in dubio pro natura principle (principio precautorio o de indubio pro natura) supposes that when there are no studies or reports carried out in accordance with the univocal rules and exact application of science and technique that allow arriving at a state of absolute certainty about the innocuousness of the activity intended to be developed on the environment, or these are contradictory among themselves, the entities and bodies of the central and decentralized administration must refrain from authorizing, approving, or permitting any new or modification application, suspend those that are in progress until the doubtful state is cleared up and, in parallel, adopt all measures aimed at their protection and preservation in order to guarantee the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In essence, a safe environmental management of groundwater (aguas subterráneas) involves protecting the resource before its contamination or degradation…"." It must be noted that, in a similar case, the Constitutional Court in judgment No. 2004-01923 of 14:55 on February 25, 2004, stated:

“…One of the guiding principles of Environmental Law is the precautionary principle or principle of prudent avoidance. This principle is contained in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development or Rio Declaration, which literally states 'Principle 15.- In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation'. In the domestic legal system, the Biodiversity Law (No. 7788 of April 30, 1998), in its Article 11, sets forth the following principles as hermeneutical parameters: '1.- Preventive criterion: It is recognized that it is of vital importance to anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of biodiversity loss or its threats. 2.- Precautionary criterion or in dubio pro natura: When there is danger or threat of serious or imminent damage to the elements of biodiversity and the knowledge associated with them, the absence of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of effective protection measures'. In Ruling of this Chamber No. 1250-99 of 11:24 on February 19, 1999 (reiterated in Rulings Nos. 9773-00 of 9:44 on November 3, 2000, 1711-01 of 16:32 on February 27, 2001, and 6322-03 of 14:14 on July 3, 2003), this Court held the following: '(...) Prevention aims to anticipate negative effects and ensure the protection, conservation, and adequate management of resources. Consequently, the guiding principle of prevention is based on the need to take and assume all precautionary measures to avoid containing the possible impact on the environment or the health of people. Thus, in the event that there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage –or a doubt in this regard–, a precautionary measure must be adopted and even the activity in question must be postponed. The foregoing is because in environmental matters, a posteriori coercion is ineffective, since if the biologically socially harmful consequences have already occurred, repression may have moral significance, but it will hardly compensate for the damages caused to the environment'. Subsequently, in Ruling No. 3480-03 of 14:02 on May 2, 2003, this Court indicated that 'Properly understood, the precautionary principle refers to the adoption of measures not in the face of ignorance of risk-generating facts, but in the face of a lack of certainty that such facts will effectively produce harmful effects on the environment'. In the case of groundwater contained in aquifers and recharge and discharge areas, the precautionary principle or in dubio pro natura supposes that when there are no studies or reports carried out in accordance with the unequivocal rules and exact application of science and technology that allow reaching a state of absolute certainty about the innocuousness of the activity intended to be developed on the environment, or these are contradictory among themselves, the entities and bodies of the central and decentralized administration must refrain from authorizing, approving, or permitting any new or modification request, suspend those that are in progress until the dubious state is cleared up, and, in parallel, adopt all measures tending to its protection and preservation in order to guarantee the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In essence, safe environmental management of groundwater involves protecting the resource before its contamination or degradation…”.

VI.- It should be added that nothing prevents the appellant company, in the interest of the principles of legitimate expectations, good faith, and inviolability of property, from resorting to the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Article 49 of the Political Constitution) to demand administrative liability for the expenses it has incurred while legitimately trusting in what was certified by the local government, in relation to the requested subdivision.

VII.- COROLLARY.- For the reasons stated, the appealed resolution is confirmed, and since no further appeal lies against this decision, the administrative process is hereby exhausted.

POR TANTO

For the reasons given, the appealed decision is confirmed. The administrative process is hereby exhausted.

I. Rocío Rojas Morales

Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes Isaac Guillermo Amador Hernández Municipal Brame S.A. Dirección3985/ Nombre5139

Nº 942-2010 TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECCIÓN TERCERA. II CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. ANEXO A. Goicoechea, a las quince horas quince minutos del once de marzo de dos mil diez.- Conoce este Tribunal, como jerarca impropio, del recurso de apelación interpuesto por Nombre101916 , mayor, divorciada, ama de casa, vecina de San Rafael de Heredia, con cédula CED77851, en su condición de Apoderada Generalísima sin límite de suma de la empresa Brame S.A., contra el acuerdo adoptado por el Concejo Municipal de San Rafael de Heredia, en la sesión ordinaria Nº 171-2008 celebrada el 5 de mayo de 2008, acuerdo Nº 3.

Redacta la Juez Rojas Morales, y;

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- Para una correcta resolución del presente asunto, se tiene por probado lo siguiente: 1) Que la empresa Brame Sociedad Anónima solicitó al Departamento de Ingeniería Municipal, el visado de los planos catastrados Placa16769 y Placa16770, con un tamaño de 486,88 y 414,13 metros cuadrados respectivamente; los dos fincas provienen de la inscrita bajo matrícula de folio real Placa16768 , según plano catastrado Placa16771, con una cabida de mil trescientos setenta y dos metros con cuarenta y dos decímetros cuadrados, a nombre de la empresa Brame S.A. (ver folios 9, 10 y 14, así como certificación registral visible a folio 56); 2) Que el inmueble citado, localizado en la urbanización Quintanar de la Sierra, se registró en el Catastro Nacional en el año 1977 (folio 10); 3) Que el visado solicitado para los planos catastrados Placa16769 y Placa16770 fue denegado mediante oficio OV-029-2008 de 31 de marzo de 2008, al encontrarse los terrenos en cuestión dentro de la “zona de protección” establecida en el Decreto Nº 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE, publicado en el alcance 15 de la Gaceta Nº 66 del 07 de abril de 1997 (Adición al Plan Regulador del Gran Área Metropolitana, GAM, Decreto Nº 13583 de 18 de mayo de 1982 ), lo que exige mantener una baja densidad habitacional en esa zona, que tiene suelos a través de los cuales “el agua infiltra y Percola recargando los acuíferos subterráneos que suplen en un altísimo porcentaje la demanda de agua potable del valle central” (oficio de folios 14 y 15); 4) La citada empresa planteó contra lo resuelto recurso de revocatoria y apelación y, mediante oficio OV-034-2008, el Departamento de Bienes Inmuebles y Catastro rechazó la revocatoria, en tanto el Concejo Municipal en el acuerdo adoptado en la sesión ordinaria Nº 171-2008, celebrada el 05 de mayo de 2008, acuerdo 3, declaró sin lugar el recurso de apelación (folios 19 y 24 a 29); 5) La empresa interesada planteó a su vez los recursos de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio contra la anterior decisión y, mediante acuerdo adoptado en la sesión extraordinaria Nº 183-2008, celebrada el 25 de junio de 2008, se dispuso rechazar el recurso de revocatoria y admitir la alzada, recurso en virtud del cual conoce este Tribunal (folios 46 a 53); 6) El informe técnico ordenado por el despacho para mejor resolver este asunto, señala que el Plan Regional del Gran Área Metropolitana (GAM), define el área donde se localizan las propiedades de la empresa recurrente como “Zona Especial de Protección”, con uso predominantemente agrícola con las siguientes limitaciones: “dentro de la zona solo se permitirán urbanizaciones y servidumbres de tipo urbano, en las áreas de expansión de los cuadrantes de las cabeceras de los distritos. Solo se permitirá una vivienda por finca (…) el área mínima es de dos hectáreas, con una cobertura del 2%”. De igual manera se indica que, de acuerdo con los estudios realizados por el SENARA, la zona donde se ubican las dos propiedades consultadas, debe catalogarse como de “recarga acuífera” y de vulnerabilidad “media a alta”. En el caso de vulnerabilidad media los lotes admitidos deben ser de 650 metros cuadrados y, en caso de vulnerabilidad alta los terrenos deben tener un área de 2000 metros cuadrados. (informe técnico ASUB-549-08 visible a folios 89 a 90).

II.- CUADRO FÁCTICO: Según consta en el expediente, la recurrente solicitó a la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia el visado a efectos de segregación, de los planos catastrados números Placa16772 con un tamaño de 486,88 metros cuadrados y Placa16773 con un área de 414,13 metros cuadrados; los dos provenientes de la finca inscrita en el Registro Público bajo matrícula Placa16768, descrito como lote Nº 16 ubicado en el Dirección11448 , , Provincia de Heredia con una cabida de mil trescientos setenta y dos metros con cuarenta y dos decímetros cuadrados, según plano catastrado Placa16771, el que fue registrado en el Catastro Nacional en el año 1977 (ver folios 9, 10 y 14). El Concejo Municipal, al resolver el recurso planteado, dispuso confirmar el rechazo de visado en la consideración de que, el acuerdo adoptado por ese mismo órgano en la sesión Nº 38-2006 de dos de octubre de 2006, estableció que el Departamento de Ingeniería no autorizaría segregaciones en los residenciales Ave del Paraíso, Residencial El Monte, Residencial El Castillo y Residencial Kitimat, disponiendo que en esas áreas los terrenos tenían que permanecer, tal y como fueron aprobadas en el proyecto original de urbanización. Por su parte, la recurrente sostiene que la urbanización Quintamar de la Sierra, no estaba incluida dentro de las señaladas por el acuerdo del Concejo Municipal citado y que, el mapa de sitio de la urbanización aprobado por el gobierno local, es anterior a la promulgación del GAM en el año 1982, razón por la cual cumple con todos los requisitos exigidos por ese cuerpo normativo para obtener los visados solicitados, los que estima ilegítimamente denegados.

III.- El Tribunal advierte que el plano catastrado H-35288-77 fue registrado en el Catastro Nacional en el año 1977 (folio 10); es decir, con anterioridad a que entrara en vigencia el GAM -1982-; adicionalmente, el citado residencial no se encuentra incluido dentro de los proyectos en los que el gobierno local dispuso en el año 2006, no se permitirían más fraccionamientos de la tierra por ubicarse en zonas protegidas. Ahora bien, el Concejo Municipal en el acuerdo impugnado señaló que, con independencia de que se hubiere dado en su oportunidad un certificado de uso de suelo conforme para fraccionar y construir en el área citada varias casas de habitación a la empresa recurrente, al momento de autorizar el visado logró determinar que los dos inmuebles que se pretenden fraccionar, se encuentran físicamente localizados dentro del área de protección del GAM para los mantos acuíferos subterráneos, y por ello la recomendación técnica consiste en mantener la zona como de “baja densidad”, puesto que la fragmentación excesiva del terreno –como la que se pretende con los visados solicitados-, expondría esos mantos subterráneos a contaminación y de ellos se abastece gran parte del área metropolitana (ver oficio del Ingeniero Topógrafo de folio 15, retomado para su valoración por el Concejo Municipal).

IV.- SOBRE EL FONDO: El Tribunal solicitó como prueba para mejor resolver al SENARA, que indicara al Tribunal si los inmuebles que corresponden a los planos catastrados 21948-2008 y 1216949-2008 se encuentra dentro de un área de protección hidrológica, y en caso afirmativo, los efectos que tendría desde el punto de vista urbanístico. En el informe técnico remitido a este despacho mediante oficio ASUB-549-08 (ver folio 89), se indicó que el Plan Regional del Gran Área Metropolitana (GAM), aplicable en San Rafael de Heredia a falta de plan regulador, define el área donde se localizan las propiedades de la recurrente como “Zona Especial de Protección”, con uso predominantemente agrícola con las siguientes limitaciones: “dentro de la zona solo se permitirán urbanizaciones y servidumbres de tipo urbano, en las áreas de expansión de los cuadrantes de las cabeceras de los distritos. Solo se permitirá una vivienda por finca (…) el área mínima es de dos hectáreas, con una cobertura del 2%” (ibídem). Es decir, para la fecha en que la empresa recurrente solicita el visado de los planos en cuestión (2008, según consta a folio 14), el GAM había incluido el área, donde se ubican los inmuebles de la recurrente como “zona de protección”, y esas regulaciones urbanísticas al ser de orden público, deben ser aplicadas por el gobierno local, al pronunciarse sobre el visado solicitado por la empresa recurrente en el año 2008, sin que el Tribunal entienda que hay aplicación retroactiva de ese cuerpo normativo, en el tanto, el área inicial del inmueble registrado bajo plano catastrado H-0035288-1977 con una cabida mil trescientos setenta y dos metros con cuarenta y dos decímetros cuadrados, fue el que se consolidó con las áreas autorizadas a ese momento, más no puede pretenderse, con base en esa situación, realizar un fraccionamiento posterior, a contrapelo de la normativa urbanística vigente a ese momento, que incluyó la zona de los lotes en cuestión dentro de una zona de protección, según se ha indicado.

V.- El SENARA, en el informe técnico requerido por este despacho y que corre agregado a folios 83 a 90, señaló con total claridad que las zonas donde se ubican las propiedades de la recurrente debe considerarse “zona de recarga acuífera y de una vulnerabilidad media a alta”, lo que impide el desarrollo de urbanizaciones de alta densidad, así como el uso de tanques sépticos. De acuerdo con el citado informe, en el caso de vulnerabilidad media los lotes admitidos deben ser de 650 metros cuadrados y, en caso de vulnerabilidad alta los terrenos deben tener un área de 2000 metros cuadrados. El Tribunal estima que el visado solicitado, en tanto supone un fraccionamiento excesivo (486, 88 y 414,13 metros cuadrados en cada caso), dadas las condiciones de recarga acuífera del terreno, incumple los criterios técnicos recabados; en consecuencia, el Concejo Municipal de San Rafael aplicó adecuadamente los principios precautorio y de sustento técnico de las decisiones urbano-ambientales, al denegar el visado, como requisito para el fraccionamiento, lo que resulta acorde con la obligación constitucional consagrada en el numeral 50 constitucional. Debe tenerse claro que, por disposición del numeral 16 .1 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública:

“1.- En ningún caso podrán dictarse actos contrarios reglas unívocas de la ciencia o de la técnica, o a principios elementales de justicia, lógica o conveniencia. (…)”.

Los criterios técnicos forman parte del bloque de juridicidad, y en el caso concreto el Tribunal ha podido constatar que sustentan la decisión adoptado por el gobierno local.

VI).- El acuerdo del Concejo Municipal que deniega el visado de los planos se ajusta a los criterios de la técnica que ha podido recabar este Tribunal y que corren agregados al expediente. No debe dejar de indicarse que, en un caso similar, el Tribunal Constitucional en la sentencia Nº 2004-01923 de las 14:55 horas del 25 de febrero de 2004, indicó:

“…Uno de los principios rectores del Derecho Ambiental lo constituye el precautorio o de evitación prudente. Este principio se encuentra recogido en la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo o Declaración de Río, la cual literalmente indica “Principio 15.- Con el fin de proteger el medio ambiente, los Estados deberán aplicar ampliamente el criterio de precaución conforme a sus capacidades. Cuando haya peligro de daño grave e irreversible, la falta de certeza científica absoluta no deberá utilizarse como razón para postergar la adopción de medidas eficaces en función de los costos para impedir la degradación del medio ambiente”. En el ordenamiento jurídico interno la Ley de Biodiversidad (No. 7788 del 30 de abril de 1998), en su artículo 11 recoge como parámetros hermenéuticos los siguientes principios: “1.- Criterio preventivo: Se reconoce que es de vital importancia anticipar, prevenir y atacar las causas de la pérdida de biodiversidad o sus amenazas. 2.- Criterios precautorio o indubio pro natura: Cuando exista peligro o amenaza de daños graves o inminentes a los elementos de la biodiversidad y al conocimiento asociado con estos, la ausencia de certeza científica no deberá utilizarse como razón para postergar la adopción de medidas eficaces de protección”. En el Voto de esta Sala No. 1250-99 de las 11:24 horas del 19 de febrero de 1999 (reiterado en los Votos Nos. 9773-00 de las 9:44 horas del 3 de noviembre del 2000, 1711-01 de las 16:32 horas del 27 de febrero del 2001 y 6322-03 de las 14:14 horas del 3 de julio del 2003) este Tribunal estimó lo siguiente: “(...) La prevención pretende anticiparse a los efectos negativos, y asegurar la protección, conservación y adecuada gestión de los recursos. Consecuentemente, el principio rector de prevención se fundamenta en la necesidad de tomar y asumir todas las medidas precautorias para evitar contener la posible afectación del ambiente o la salud de las personas. De esta forma, en caso de que exista un riesgo de daño grave o irreversible –o una duda al respecto-, se debe adoptar una medida de precaución e inclusive posponer la actividad de que se trate. Lo anterior debido a que en materia ambiental la coacción a posteriori resulta ineficaz, por cuanto de haberse producido ya las consecuencias biológicas socialmente nocivas, la represión podrá tener una trascendencia moral, pero difícilmente compensará los daños ocasionados en el ambiente”. Posteriormente, en el Voto No. 3480-03 de las 14:02 horas del 2 de mayo del 2003, este Tribunal indicó que “Bien entendido el principio precautorio, el mismo se refiere a la adopción de medidas no ante el desconocimiento de hechos generadores de riesgo, sino ante la carencia de certeza respecto de que tales hechos efectivamente producirán efectos nocivos en el ambiente”. Para el caso de las aguas subterráneas contenidas en los mantos acuíferos y áreas de carga y descarga, el principio precautorio o de indubio pro natura, supone que cuando no existan estudios o informes efectuados conforme a las regla unívocas y de aplicación exacta de la ciencia y de la técnica que permitan arribar a un estado de certeza absoluta acerca de la inocuidad de la actividad que se pretende desarrollar sobre el medio ambiente o éstos sean contradictorios entre sí, los entes y órganos de la administración central y descentralizada deben abstenerse de autorizar, aprobar o permitir toda solicitud nueva o de modificación, suspender las que estén en curso hasta que se despeje el estado dubitativo y, paralelamente, adoptar todas las medidas tendientes a su protección y preservación con el objeto de garantizar el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. En esencia, una gestión ambiental segura de las aguas subterráneas pasa por proteger el recurso antes de su contaminación o degradación…”.

VI.- Cabe agregar que, nada le impide a la empresa recurrente, en aras de los principios de la confianza legítima, la buena fe e intangibilidad del patrimonio, acudir ante la Jurisdicción Contencioso – Administrativa (artículo 49 de la Constitución Política) a exigir responsabilidad administrativa por los gastos en que haya incurrido confiando legítimamente en lo certificado por el gobierno local, en relación con el fraccionamiento solicitado.

VII.- COROLARIO.- Por los motivos expuestos, se confirma la resolución apelada y al no caber contra lo resuelto ulterior recurso, se da por agotada la vía administrativa.

POR TANTO

Por las razones dadas, se confirma el acuerdo recurrido. Se da por agotada la vía administrativa.

I. Rocío Rojas Morales

Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes Isaac Guillermo Amador Hernández Municipal Brame S.A. Dirección3985/ Nombre5139